close_position

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it works on an open position and can be full/partial, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., irreversibility, impact on associated orders, asynchronous execution, or error conditions). This is a significant gap for a mutating trading operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single clear sentence in English and equivalent Korean, front-loading the key verb and resource. No wasted words, perfectly sized for an operation already well-documented by the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain return values or execution flow. Sibling tools like get_command_queue and get_handler_result suggest this operation may be queued asynchronously, but the description omits such crucial context, leaving the agent without guidance on what to expect after invoking the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema descriptions for both parameters (ticket and volume) are fully explicit, with volume noting that it 'closes full position if not specified.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating 'full or partial.' With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Close an open position (full or partial).' The verb 'close' is specific, the resource 'open position' is defined, and the scope (full/partial) is noted. This distinguishes it from siblings like open_order, modify_position, and cancel_order.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context by indicating that the tool supports full or partial closure, implying when it should be used (e.g., to reduce exposure). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like modify_position for partial reductions or mention when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.